Wells Wulsin
SASS
2010 March 3
Einstein’s Politics
Advert
“That is simple my friend: because politics is more difficult than physics.” So answered Albert
Einstein when asked why people could discover atomic power but not the means to control it.
Even if more challenging, politics was a subject that Einstein wrote about throughout his life,
taking bold and often unpopular positions. In this talk I will discuss Einstein's political views on
issues including intellectual freedom, racism, and prospects for world peace.
Introduction
I am not an expert on Albert Einstein, nor am I a historian at all. However, I enjoyed reading
Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein so much last summer that I thought maybe by giving a
talk on Einstein's life I could persuade some of you to pick it up on your own. Much of the
content of this talk comes from that biography, as well as from two other collections of
Einstein’s works, “Ideas and Opinions”—which includes lots of his writing on other matters
besides politics—and “Einstein on Politics,” edited by David Rowe and Robert Schulmann. I’ve
read bits of these latter two works to find Einstein’s original words as well as the context in
which he wrote them. I recommend all three texts, but if you have time for just one, I’d suggest
starting with Isaacson, because it gives the most holistic picture of Einstein’s life and science. I
should also say at the outset that I take responsibility for any factual errors I may have
introduced in my own retelling of the story, and plead forgiveness by reiterating that I am a
student of science, not history.
Einstein's scientific accomplishments earned him widespread fame, not only within academic
circles, but among the general public as well. When Arthur Eddington measured the deflection
of starlight around the sun during a solar eclipse in 1919, confirming the predictions of general
relativity, Einstein was launched into celebrity status possibly unequaled by any scientist in
history.
His name made headlines in newspapers around the world. He drew huge crowds when he
spoke, he met with statesmen, he became a household cultural icon. Everywhere he went, he
was bombarded by the paparazzi. His second wife Elsa decided not to let all this attention go to
waste and began charging a fee to have a photograph taken with Einstein, and then donated the
proceeds to charity. It’s quite a thrilling thought—that reporters and photographers would mob a
theoretical physicist the way they stalk Britney Spears or Tiger Woods today.
The attention Einstein attracted from the general public gave him the opportunity to speak not
only about science but also about a wide range of other topics, including philosophy, religion,
and education. Today I'll focus on just one arena in which he leant his voice, that of politics.
1
I'll read a few selections of Einstein's writings, because I think that Einstein's own words speak
more powerfully than any summarized version I could have written myself.
To give some context to these readings, let me quote a passage from the preface of Rowe and
Schulman, in which they highlight two broad themes that dominate Einstein’s worldview: his
commitment to internationalism and to the Zionist movement.
“In his writings and correspondence…Einstein stressed above all the importance of human
dignity and the need for creative freedom. His sense of social justice was defined by a fierce
empathy with the underdog that served as the moral catalyst of his political engagement. And
yet, his sense of responsibility for the defenseless and the underprivileged was offset by a
jealously guarded independence that made him indifferent to the temptations of political
influence.
“Alongside this steadfast commitment to human freedom, two central themes define his
lifelong search for means to advance his moral purpose, and to our mind, these constitute the
heart of his political legacy. The first was his heartfelt belief that intellectuals had a moral
obligation, clearly and truthfully, to strive for international solidarity and to address the
fundamental causes of national hostility. Only thus could political leaders be forced to deal with
the scourge of war, the single greatest challenge facing humanity in the twentieth century. The
second and no less important theme for Einstein was his personal embrace of the cultural Zionist
movement as a model for restoring dignity to the powerless. He deeply hoped that this
movement would not only provide a spiritual homeland for the oppressed Jews of Eastern
Europe but would also serve as a symbol of humanity’s search for a world community based on
mutual solidarity and as an ‘ideal form of human interdependence.’
“Taken together, these two themes go a long way toward defining Einstein’s political
persona… As a pragmatic idealist, however, he recognized that politics was the art of achieving
what is possible in a given situation. Indeed, this facet of his political persona—along with the
powerful moral messages he sought to convey—make his legacy truly worthy of closer
examination, especially at a time when political idealism has lost nearly all credibility. By
studying the ways in which Einstein chose to advance his clearly articulated agenda we can see
how far removed he really was from the mythic image of a bumbling, naïve idealist.” (Rowe
xxiv-xxv)
Einstein wrote many letters, articles, and speeches related to politics, so by necessity I have
chosen just a few to read here, and in many of these I have had to read just excerpts of the full
version.
On intellectual freedom
After the Soviet Union detonated an atomic bomb, a fear of communism spread across
America. Suspected Communists were called before the House Un-American Activities
Committee and other government bodies. Some refused to testify under the 5th Amendment,
while others argued these trials were a violation of their First Amendment rights. William
Frauenglass was a school teacher from Brooklyn subpoenaed to testify before Congress, and
2
asked Einstein for support after reading a remark by Einstein in which he described himself as
“an incorrigible nonconformist whose nonconformism in a remote field of endeavor [physics] no
senatorial committee has as yet felt impelled to tackle.” Einstein's open letter to Frauenglass was
published in the New York Times in 1953.
Reading: “Open letter to William Frauenglass,” NY Times 1953, Rowe 494-495.
The problem with which the intellectuals of this country are confronted is very serious.
The reactionary politicians have managed o instill suspicion of all intellectual efforts into the
public by dangling before their eyes a danger from without. Having succeeded so far, they are
now proceeding to suppress the freedom of teaching and to deprive of their positions all those
who do not prove submissive, i.e., to starve them.
What ought the minority of intellectuals to do against this evil? Frankly, I can
see only the revolutionary way of non-cooperation in the sense of Gandhi’s. Every intellectual
who is called before one of the committees ought to refuse to testify, i.e., he must be prepared for
jail and economic ruin, in short, for the sacrifice of his personal welfare in the interest of the
cultural welfare of this country.
This refusal to testify must be based on the assertion that it is shameful for
a blameless citizen to submit to such an inquisition and that this kind of inquisition
violates the spirit of the Constitution.
If enough people are ready to take this grave step they will be successful. If not, then the
intellectuals of this country deserve nothing better than the slavery which is intended for them.
P.S. This letter need not be considered “confidential.”
Although Einstein received a flood of mail, mostly positive, after this statement, many of
the newspapers commented disapprovingly. The New York Times editorial board sharply
criticized Einstein, calling the use of “the unnatural and illegal forces of civil disobedience”
merely an attempt “to attack one evil with another”.
On a Jewish homeland
Being Jewish, Einstein himself had experienced the pain of discrimination in Germany.
To cite just one example of that, in 1909 a report by the faculty at the University of Zurich in
consideration of a professorship for Einstein cites his Jewishness as a potential problem: “...Herr
Dr. Einstein is an Israelite and since precisely to the Israelites among scholars are inscribed (in
numerous cases not entirely without cause) all kinds of unpleasant peculiarities of character, such
as intrusiveness, impudence, and a shopkeeper's mentality in the perception of their academic
position.” (Isaacson 152) But thanks to the support of a colleague, Einstein was offered his first
professorship, four years after he had revolutionized physics.
Einstein became a leader of the Zionist movement, speaking publicly in support of a
Jewish homeland and raising money to open Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He was such a
prominent figure in the Jewish community that in 1952, on the death of Chaim Weizmann, the
first President of Israel, Einstein himself was offered the presidency. Though the position was
only ceremonial, Einstein declined, citing his advanced age. But he also feared that his views on
Jewish Arab relations might clash with the mainstream opinion in Israel, thus putting him in the
uncomfortable position of having to authorize laws and policies with which he disagreed.
Privately, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion did not think it was a good idea, confiding to his
3
secretary, “Tell me what to do if he says Yes!...If he accepts we are in for trouble.” (Rowe 355)
Ben-Gurion was relieved with Einstein’s refusal of the post when they met at a black tie
reception two days later, and Ben-Gurion noticed that Einstein was not wearing any socks!
(Isaacson 523)
The persecution of Jews throughout Europe, culminating with the Holocaust, convinced
Einstein of the need for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. And yet he was not committed to a
single Jewish-majority state in the Middle East. He considered that Palestine become a
binational state in which Jews and Arabs would live harmoniously side by side (Rowe 2). He
proposed the creation of a council of four Jews and four Arabs to resolve any disputes. “The two
great Semitic peoples have a great common future,” he said. (Isaacson 381)
However, after the founding of Israel in 1948, tensions between Jews and Arabs grew
rapidly. For a conference of the United Jewish Appeal in Atlantic City, NJ, Einstein delivered a
radio address on NBC, in which he blamed the British, which had occupied Palestine since the
First World War, for sowing the seeds of conflict between Jews and Arabs.
Reading: “The Jews of Israel,” NBC radio address, Rowe 352-4.
There is no problem of such overwhelming importance to us as Jews as consolidating that
which has been accomplished in Israel with amazing energy and an unequalled willingness for
sacrifice. May the joy and admiration that fill us when we think of all that this small group of
energetic and thoughtful people has achieved give us the strength o accept the great responsibility
which the present situation has placed upon us.
When appraising the achievement, however, let us not lose sight of the cause to be served
by this achievement: rescue of our endangered brethren, dispersed in many lands, by uniting
them in Israel; creation of a community which conforms as closely as possible to the ethical
ideals of our people as they have been formed in the course of a long history.
One of these ideals is peace, based on understanding and self-restraint, and not on
violence. If we are imbued with this ideal, our joy becomes somewhat mingled with sadness,
because our relations with the Arabs are far from this ideal at the present time. It may well be
that we would have reached this ideal, had we been permitted to work out, undisturbed by others,
our relations with our neighbors, for we want peace and we realize that our future development
depends on peace.
It was much less our own fault or that of our neighbors than of the Mandatory Power that
we did not achieve an undivided Palestine in which Jews and Arabs would live as equals, free, in
peace. If one nation dominates other nations, as was the case in the British Mandate over
Palestine, she can hardly avoid following the notorious device of Divide et Impera. In plain
language this means: create discord among the governed people so they will not unite in order to
shake off the yoke imposed upon them. Well, the yoke has been removed, but the seed of
dissension has borne fruit and may still do harm for some time to come—let us hope not for too
long.
…
It must not happen that this magnificent work breaks down because the Jews of this
country do not help sufficiently or quickly enough. Here, to my mind, is a precious gift with
which all Jews have been presented: the opportunity to take an active part in this wonderful task.
On racism
As with discrimination against Jews, Einstein was disturbed by the racial discrimination
he saw in America. He wrote the following article in 1946. Though many of these observations
4
may seem obvious today, remember that he was writing 8 years before the Brown v. Board of
Education, 9 nears before Rosa Parks took a stand, 17 years before Martin Luther King's I have a
Dream speech.
Although in the original version, Einstein used the word “Negro,” I'll use “AfricanAmerican” instead, since he would surely have used this accepted term were he alive today.
Reading: “A Message to my adopted country” Pageant 1, 1946, Rowe 474-476.
…
In the United States everyone feels assured of his worth as an individual. No on humbles
himself before another person or class. Even the great difference in wealth, the superior power of
a few, cannot undermine this healthy self-confidence and natural respect for the dignity of one’s
fellow-man.
There is, however, a somber point in the social outlook of Americans. Their sense of
equality and human dignity is mainly limited to men of white skins. Even among these there are
prejudices of which I as a Jew am clearly conscious; but they are unimportant in comparison with
the attitude of the “Whites” toward their fellow-citizens of darker complexion, particularly
toward Negroes. The more I feel an American, the more this situation pains me. I can escape the
feeling of complicity in it only by speaking out.
Many a sincere person will answer me: “Our attitude toward Negroes is the result of
unfavorable experiences which we have had by living side by side with Negroes in this country.
They are not our equals in intelligence, sense of responsibility, reliability.”
I am firmly convinced that whoever believes this suffers from a fatal misconception.
Your ancestors dragged these black people from their homes by force; and in the white man’s
quest for wealth and an easy life they have been ruthlessly suppressed and exploited, degraded
into slavery. The modern prejudice against Negroes is the result of the desire to maintain this
unworthy condition.
…
I believe that whoever tries to think things through honestly will soon recognize how
unworthy and even fatal is the traditional bias against Negroes.
What, however, can the man of good will do to combat this deeply rooted prejudice? He
must have the courage to set an example by word and deed, and must watch lest his children
become influenced by this racial bias.
I do not believe there is a way in which this deeply entrenched evil can be quickly healed.
But until this goal is reached there is no greater satisfaction for a just and well-meaning person
than the knowledge that he has devoted his best energies to the service of the good cause.
That is precisely what I have tried to do in writing this.
There are other examples of Einstein taking a stand against racism. In 1937 the renowned
concert singer Marian Anderson visited Princeton to perform but was denied accommodation at
the whites-only Nassau Inn. So Einstein invited her to stay at his home, which she did
repeatedly over the years. (Jerome 4)
In 1946, after the lynching of two African-Americans in Georgia, Einstein co-founded the
American Crusade to End Lynching with Paul Robeson. They demanded that Congress make
lynching a federal crime, but President Truman responded, “The time is not right.” (Jerome 2)
And in 1951, the African-American scholar and founder of the NAACP WEB DuBois
was arrested and charged with being a “foreign agent.” He was taken to court, where the
prosecution presented its case. The defense attorney told the judge that Albert Einstein was
5
prepared to appear as the first character witness, and after a recess, the judge dismissed the case.
(Jerome 3)
On conscientious objection
The second dominant theme of Einstein’s politics was his commitment to international
cooperation. Part of this was his opposition to war. He gave the following speech
extemporaneously at a meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in New York of the New History
Society, which was an offshoot of the pacifist Baha'i religious movement. It was later published
by the New York Times and became a manifesto for war resisters.
Reading: “Two Percent Speech”, New History Society, Carlton Hotel, New York, 1930, Rowe
240-1.
When those who are bound together by pacifist ideals hold a meeting they are always
consorting with their own kind only. They are like sheep huddled together while the wolves wait
outside. I think pacifist speakers have this difficulty: they usually reach their own crowd, who
are pacifists already. The sheep’s voice does not get beyond this circle and therefore is
ineffective. That is the trouble with the pacifist movement.
Real pacifists, those who are not up in the clouds but who think and count realities, must
fearlessly try to do things of practical value to the cause and not merely speak about pacifism.
Deeds are needed. Mere words do not get pacifists anywhere. They must initiate action and
begin with what can be done at once.
As to what our next step should be, I should like you to realize that under our present
system of military duty everyone is compelled to commit a crime—the crime of killing people for
his country. The aim of all pacifists must be to convince others of the immorality of war and rid
the world of the shameful slavery of military service. I swish to suggest two ways to achieve that
aim.
The first has already been put into practice. It is uncompromising war resistance, refusal
to do military service under any circumstances. In countries where conscription is established,
the real pacifist must refuse military duty. A large number of pacifists in many countries are
refusing at great personal sacrifice to serve their military term in peace-time. By doing so, they
indicate that they will not fight if there should be war.
In countries where compulsory service does not obtain, real pacifists must in time of
peace publicly declare that they will not take up arms under any circumstances. This, too, is an
effective way of announcing one’s war resistance. I earnestly advise recruiting people with this
idea all over the world. For the timid who say, “What is the use? We might be shut up in
prison,” I add: even if only two percent of those supposed to perform military service should
declare themselves war resisters and assert, “We are not going to fight. We need other methods
of settling international disputes,” the governments would be powerless—they could not put such
masses into jail.
As a second line of action for war resisters I suggest something which appears to be less
illegal. That is, to try to establish through international legislation the right to refuse military
service in peace-time. Those who are unwilling to accept the obligation might advocate
legislation which would permit them to do some strenuous or even dangerous work, each for his
country or for mankind, in place of military service, to prove that their ward resistance is
unselfish—a consequence of their belief that international differences can be settled other than by
fighting; to prove that they do not oppose war for their personal comfort or because of cowardice
or because they do not want to serve their country or humanity. If we take upon ourselves such
6
dangerous occupations we shall be advancing far on the road to the pacification of the world.
After this speech, buttons labeled with nothing but “2%” began popping up on students
and pacifists, sometimes causing confusion when they were taken to refer to 2% beer.
On international peace
Einstein was a pacifist—even a “militant pacifist” he once declared—but he was also a
realist. He believed that the only way to ultimately curb the use of military force would be the
threat of greater force in retaliation. He saw a single path to the abolition of war: the creation of
an international governing body with the authority to use military power to resolve disputes
between nations. For Einstein, world government was the only solution that would bring lasting
peace. He expected a supranational body would lead to some problems, but thought them vastly
preferable to the inter-state violence that would continue without one.
Einstein held few sentiments of nationalism. He once summed up his internationalist
position simply: “By heritage I am a Jew, by nationality Swiss, by conviction a human being
and only a human being with no particular penchant for a state or national entity.” (Rowe 1) He
saw loyalty to one country over others as a major obstacle to ending global conflict. Peace could
only come when people developed an understanding and respect for societies different from their
own. This commitment to internationalism is one of the dominant themes that Einstein wrote
about throughout his life.
In this passage he discusses how these ideas can help lay the foundation for lasting peace.
Reading: “Atomic War or Peace”, interview with Raymond Swing, Atlantic Monthly 1945,
Rowe 373-6.
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more
urgent the necessity of solving an existing one. One could say that it has affected us
quantitatively, not qualitatively. As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power,
war is inevitable. This does not mean that one can know when war will come but only that one is
sure that it will come. This was true even before the atomic bomb was made. What has changed
is the destructiveness of war.
I do not believe that the secret of the bomb should be given to the United Nations
Organization. I do not believe it should be given to the Soviet Union. Either course would be
analogous to a man with capital who, wishing another individual to collaborate with him on an
enterprise, starts by giving him half his money. The other man might choose to start a rival
enterprise, when what is wanted is his cooperation. The secret of the bomb should be committed
to a world government, and the United States should immediately announce its readiness to do so.
Such a world government should be established by the United States, the Soviet Union and Great
Britain, the only three powers which possess great military strength. The three of them should
commit to this world government all of their military resources. The fact that there are only three
nations with great military power should make it easier, rather than harder, to establish a world
government.
Since the United States and Great Britain have the secret of the atomic bomb and the
Soviet Union does not, they should invite the Soviet Union to prepare and present the first draft of
a Constitution for the proposed world government. This would help to dispel the distrust of the
Russians, which they feel because they know the bomb is being kept a secret chiefly to prevent
their having it. Obviously the first draft would not be the final one, but the Russians should be
7
able to feel that the world government will guarantee their security.
It would be wise if this Constitution were to be negotiated by one American, one Briton
and one Russian. They would, of course, need advisers, but these advisers should serve only
when asked. I believe three men can succeed in preparing a workable Constitution acceptable to
all the powers. Were six or seven men, or more, to attempt to do so, they would probably fail.
After the three great powers have drafted a Constitution and adopted it, the smaller nations should
be invited to join the world government. They should also be free not to join and, though they
should feel perfectly secure outside the world government, I am sure they will eventually wish to
join. Naturally, they should be entitled to propose changes in the Constitution as drafted by the
Big Three. But the Big Three should go ahead and organize the world government, whether or
not the smaller nations decide to join.
Such a world government should have jurisdiction over all military matters, and it need
have only one other power. That is the power to interfere in countries where a minority is
oppressing the majority and, therefore, is creating the kind of instability that leads to war. For
example, conditions as they exist today in Argentina and Spain should be dealt with. There must
be an end to the concept of non-intervention, for to abandon non-intervention in certain
circumstances is part of keeping the peace.
…
Do I fear the tyranny of world government? Of course I do. But I far still ore the coming
of another war. Any government is certain to be evil to some extent. But a world government is
preferable to the far greater evil of wars, particularly when viewed in the context of the
intensified destructiveness of war. If such a world government is not established by a process of
agreement among nations, I believe it will come anyway, and in a much more dangerous form;
for war or wars can only result in one power being supreme and dominating the rest of the world
by its overwhelming military supremacy.
Now that we have the atomic secret, we must not lose it, and that is what we would risk
doing if we gave it to the United Nations Organization or to the Soviet Union. But, as soon as
possible, we must make it clear that we are not keeping the bomb a secret for the sake of
maintaining our power but in the hope of establishing peace through world government, and that
we will do our utmost to bring this world government into being.
I appreciate that there are persons who approve of world government as the ultimate
objective but favor a gradual approach to its establishment. The trouble with taking little steps,
one at a time, in the hope of eventually reaching the ultimate goal, s that while such steps are
being taken, we continue to keep the bomb without convincing those who do not have the bomb
of our ultimate intentions. That of itself creates fear and suspicion, with the consequence that the
relations between rival countries deteriorate to a dangerous extent. That is why people who
advocate taking a step at a time may think they are approaching world peace, but they actually are
contributing by their slow pace to the possibility of war. We have no time to waste in this way.
If war is to be averted, it must be done quickly.
On the atomic bomb
One of Einstein's most famous public policy actions was the 1939 letter that he wrote to
President Franklin Roosevelt, promoting research into nuclear fission with the possibility of
building an atomic weapon. This letter prompted government action which eventually led to the
creation of the Manhattan Project.
After the bomb was used twice in the war, an editor of a Japanese newspaper, Kaizo,
asked Einstein to respond to the use of the atomic bomb. This is what he wrote back to the
8
editor.
Reading: “Reply to the Editor of Kaizo”, 1952, Rowe 488-489.
My participation in the production of the atomic bomb consisted of one single act: I
signed a letter to President Roosevelt, in which I emphasized the necessity of conducting largescale experimentation with regard to the feasibility of producing an atom bomb.
I was well aware of the dreadful danger for all of mankind were the experiments to prove
successful. Yet I felt compelled to take the step because it seemed probable that the Germans
might be working on the same problem with every prospect of success. I saw no alternative but
to act as I did, although I have always been a convinced pacifist.
I believe that the killing of human beings in a war is no better than common murder; but
so long as nations lack the determination to abolish war through common action and find means
of solving their disputes and safeguarding their interests by peaceful arrangements according to
existing laws, they will continue to consider it necessary to prepare for war. They will feel
compelled to engage in the manufacture of even the most detestable weapons in their fear that
they may lag behind in the general arms race. Such an approach can only lead to war, and
warfare today would mean universal annihilation of human beings.
There is little point, therefore, in opposing the manufacture of specific weapons; the only
solution is to abolish both war and the threat of war. That is the goal toward which we should
strive. We must be determined to reject all activities which in any way contradict this goal. This
is a harsh demand for any individual who is conscious of his dependence upon society; but it is
not an impossible demand.
Gandhi, the greatest political genius of our time, indicated the path to be taken. He gave
proof of what sacrifice man is capable once he has discovered the right path. His work in behalf
of India’s liberation is living testimony to the fact that man’s will, sustained by an indomitable
conviction, is more powerful than material forces that seem insurmountable.
On global divisions
In April 1955 the Israeli Ambassador to the United States asked Einstein to give a radio address
to commemorate the seventh anniversary of the founding of Israel. It would be heard by as many
as 60 million listeners. Einstein saw the birth of Israel as one of those rare political acts which
had a moral quality, but he was worried about the tensions between Jews and Arabs. “The
attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a
people,” he had said to a friend just weeks before. Rather than just celebrate independence,
Einstein wanted to expand the speech to discuss the persistent divisions of peoples around the
globe. (Isaacson 541) He began to draft the speech, but became sick and died before he could
deliver it. This is what he had written.
Reading: “Final undelivered message to the world,” prepared remarks for a speech to Israeli
consul in New York, 1955, Israel/Arab conflict, Rowe 506-7.
I speak to you today not as an American citizen and not as a Jew, but as a human being
who seeks with the greatest seriousness to look at things objectively. What I seek to accomplish
is simply to serve with my feeble capacity truth and justice at the risk of pleasing no one.
At issue is the conflict between Israel and Egypt. You may consider this a small and
insignificant problem and may feel that there are more serious things to worry about. But this is
not true. In matters concerning truth and justice there can be no distinction between big problems
9
and small; for the general principles which determine the conduct of men are indivisible.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important affairs.
This indivisibility applies not only to moral but also to political problems; for little
problems cannot be properly appreciated unless they are understood in their interdependence with
big problems. And the big problem in our time is the division of mankind into two hostile camps:
the Communist World and the so-called Free World. Since the significance of the terms Free and
Communist is in this context hardly clear to me, I prefer to speak of a power conflict between
East and West, although, the world being round, it is not even clear what precisely is meant by
the terms East and West.
In essence, the conflict that exists today is no more than an old-style struggle for power,
once again presented to mankind in semireligious trappings. The difference is that, this time, the
development of atomic power has imbued the struggle with a ghostly character; for both parties
know and admit that, should the quarrel deteriorate into actual war, mankind is doomed. Despite
this knowledge, statesmen in responsible positions on both sides continue to employ the wellknown technique of seeking to intimidate and demoralize the opponent by marshaling superior
military strength. They do so even though such a policy entails the risk of war and doom. Not
one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out
any promise of peace, the course of supranational security, since for a statesman to follow such a
course would be tantamount to political suicide. Political passions, once they have been fanned
into flames, exact their victims.
Conclusion
I’d like to close with a summary of Einstein's political views from Walter Isaacson. He writes,
“Einstein's instinct for unification was ingrained in his personality and reflected in his politics.
Just as he sought a unified theory in science that could govern the cosmos, so he sought one in
politics that could govern the planet, one that would overcome the anarchy of unfettered
nationalism through a world federalism based on universal principles.” (Isaacson 550) In one of
the final lines of the book Isaacson sums up Einstein's character in a single sentence: “He was a
loner with an intimate bond to humanity, a rebel who was suffused with reverence.” (Isaacson
551)
References
Isaacson, Walter, Einstein: His life and universe, Simon & Schuster, 2007.
Rowe, David and Robert Schulman, Einstein on Politics: His private thoughts and public stands
on nationalism, Zionism, war, peace, and the bomb, Princeton University Press, 2007.
Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers Press, 1954.
Jerome, Fred and Rodger Taylor, “Einstein as Citizen: Addressing race and racism,” SPS
Observer, Spring/summer 2009.
10